B-242166.4, Nov 20, 1991

B-242166.4: Nov 20, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest of Small Business Administration's (SBA) refusal to issue certificate of competency is denied where request in part reasserts previous arguments that SBA failed to consider vital information regarding protester's quality control system. Marine's protest challenged SBA's determination that the firm had not established that the completed stadimeters it offered to supply were produced in accordance with MIL-I-45208A (a military inspection standard) as required by the RFP. Marine alleged that SBA failed to consider vital information bearing on its responsibility in that it failed to recognize that Marine did in fact have a MIL-I 45208A inspection system in place when it produced the offered stadimeters.

B-242166.4, Nov 20, 1991

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest of Small Business Administration's (SBA) refusal to issue certificate of competency is denied where request in part reasserts previous arguments that SBA failed to consider vital information regarding protester's quality control system, and in part raises untimely new allegation.

Attorneys

Marine Instrument Company-- Reconsideration:

Marine Instrument Company requests reconsideration of our decision, Marine Instr. Co., B-242166.3, Sept. 27, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. ***, in which we denied its protest of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) decision to deny the firm a certificate of competency (COC) in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. N00104-90-R-G199, issued by the Navy Ships Parts Control Center for 49 stadimeters. /1/

We deny the request.

Marine's protest challenged SBA's determination that the firm had not established that the completed stadimeters it offered to supply were produced in accordance with MIL-I-45208A (a military inspection standard) as required by the RFP. Specifically, Marine alleged that SBA failed to consider vital information bearing on its responsibility in that it failed to recognize that Marine did in fact have a MIL-I 45208A inspection system in place when it produced the offered stadimeters. In our decision denying the protest, we found based on the record that SBA had reviewed Marine's inspection records, and could not conclude based on those records that the completed stadimeters were in compliance with the military standard. We therefore held that the record did not support Marine's assertion that SBA had failed to consider vital information bearing upon the firm's responsibility.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration the requesting party must either show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1991). Marine has not met this standard.

In its reconsideration request, Marine restates its earlier assertion that it possessed complete inspection records for the stadimeters it had in stock, and that SBA's finding that the records did not show compliance with MIL-I-45208A was based on its misunderstanding of Marine's inspection system. As we noted in our decision, although Marine disagrees with SBA's conclusion about its quality controls, the record establishes that SBA did in fact consider Marine's quality control system and inspection records. Marine's disagreement with SBA's conclusion based on its consideration of that information does not amount to a showing that SBA failed to consider the information. See Marine Instr. Co., B-241287.2, May 6, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 436.

In addition to reiterating its previous arguments, Marine alleges for the first time that it did not intend to supply the Navy with existing stadimeters it had in stock but, rather, planned to manufacture new units. Marine argues that SBA's decision to deny the firm a COC and our decision supporting SBA's action were flawed because they were based on the assumption that Marine was planning to supply the Navy with existing stadimeters for which it could not produce adequate quality control records.

We will not reconsider a decision based upon arguments that could and should have been raised while the protest was pending since the goal of our bid protest forum-- to produce fair and equitable decisions based on consideration of all parties' arguments on a fully developed record-- otherwise would be undermined. American Mgmt. Sys., Inc.; Dept. of the Army-- Recon., B-241569.2; B-241569.3, May 21, 1991, 70 Comp.Gen. ***, 91-1 CPD Para. 492. Here, the agency's report on the protest made it clear that SBA's decision was based in part on its finding that Marine intended to supply to the Navy 49 of 65 stadimeters that it had in stock; Marine's comments on the report acknowledged that the firm did in fact offer to provide the existing stadimeters because they were immediately available. Accordingly, we will not consider Marine's new-- and inconsistent-- assertion that it intended to manufacture new units under the contract.

In any case, as we noted in our decision, SBA did consider Marine's ability to produce new units, and found that Marine was delinquent on all seven of its completed or terminated Navy contracts during the past year. While Marine reasserts its earlier argument that two of those delinquencies were the fault of the government, our decision noted that SBA considered this point but found that Marine was still delinquent on the other five contracts. Again, while Marine disagrees with SBA's conclusion as to the effect of those delinquencies on its responsibility, it has not shown that SBA failed to consider vital information in reaching that conclusion. Marine Instr. Co., supra.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

/1/ A stadimeter is used aboard ship to measure the ship's distance from other objects, enabling it, for example, to maintain formation within a convoy.